• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 카지노 - Larsbo explains - research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 팁 (Visit Homepage) cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.